Gear-obsessed editors choose every product we review. We may earn commission if you buy from a link.
How we test gear.

Anti-Vaccination Groups Dealt Blow as Lancet Study is Retracted

A 1998 study in The Lancet medical journal that largely launched the dangerous anti-vaccination movement has been officially retracted. Here are the details on the ethical and scientific missteps that eventually lead to the editors pulling this study.

In what will likely be a big blow to the anti-vaccination movement, The Lancet medical journal has retracted the 1998 study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that originally sparked the uproar over whether vaccines are linked to autism.

The move by editors of The Lancet on Tuesday came after the General Medical Council—Britain's independent regulator for doctors—admonished Wakefield and two of his co-authors last week for acting irresponsibly and unethically in the course of the research. The Council found that Wakefield subjected children to invasive procedures such as colonoscopies for pure experimentation rather than clinical purposes and without ethics board approval. Wakefield even obtained blood samples from kids at his son's birthday party for five pounds (about $8) apiece. Money was perhaps not much of an issue for Wakefield, however: He allegedly pocketed around $800,000 from a law firm involved with class-action lawsuits claiming injury from vaccines.

For the now-retracted study, Wakefield and his colleagues found intestinal abnormalities in 12 children, two-thirds of whom parents and physicians say developed autism spectrum disorders and gastrointestinal illnesses right around the time they got pricked with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Though the study stopped short of explicitly blaming the MMR vaccine for the GI illness and developmental regressions—instead invoking "possible environmental triggers"—the insinuation was clear. Wakefield amplified the vaccine-disease connection at an alarming press conference given at the time of publication.

Wakefield's poor personal behavior should not eclipse good science. But over the years, the original study has come under intense fire not just on ethical grounds but also on scientific merit. Wakefield and lawyers working on the class-action lawsuits cherry-picked the 12 children, the editor of The Lancet told The Wall Street Journal, and distorted their case histories. In 2004, in response to this conflict of interest and other issues, 10 of the study's 13 authors formally retracted the section suggesting a time-associated link between the vaccine and onset of autism.

The Fallout

The damage had already been done, however. After the study's publication, a flurry of follow-up research, lawsuits and finger-pointing ensued. Most damaging of all, perhaps, is that many justifiably freaked-out parents opted not to immunize their children. In just five years, the child non-vaccination rate for MMR in the U.S. nearly tripled from 0.77 percent in 1995 to 2.1 percent in 2000. Similarly, in Britain, where The Lancet is published, child vaccination rates have dropped by nearly a third compared to 1990s levels. As a consequence, more children succumbed to diseases once held largely in check by national vaccination programs. In Britain, cases of MMR spiked to two-dozen times the incidence rate in 2008 as in 1998.

The Lancet's retraction has elicited strong reactions from advocates on both sides of the vaccine-autism issue. Amy Pisani, executive director of Every Child By Two, a pro-vaccination organization, thinks the retraction does far too little too late. "I feel that The Lancet is culpable in the deaths of children," Pisani says. She also points out that the study diverted attention away from legitimate autism research for years. Rita Shreffler, executive director of the National Autism Association, disagrees, maintaining that vaccines are implicated in autism regardless of The Lancet's action. "The paper that was retracted does not say MMR causes autism," she says.

Less controversial is evidence of a surge of autism cases in recent decades. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the prevalence for autism in the U.S. is now one in 110 children; two decades ago that figure was one in 10,000. Heightened awareness and the ability to better diagnose autism certainly explains some of the increase, but doubts linger as to whether that can account for all of it. Genetic susceptibility no doubt plays a role, and some fear that environmental problems such as contaminated water supplies may also be responsible.

Regardless, the overwhelming scientific consensus in the literature—endorsed by the independent, non-governmental Institute of Medicine, the CDC and other governmental organizations in the U.S. and abroad—is that vaccines are not the cause of autism. For example, a paper published last year in Clinical Infectious Diseases, which reviewed 20 studies on the subject, refuted the main "scientific" pillars of the anti-vaccination movement one-by-one.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

This commenting section is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page. You may be able to find more information on their web site.

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Popular Mechanics participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.